Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday July 22, 2011 @01:35PM
from the dude-where's-my-car dept.

Attila Dimedici writes "Massachusetts wants to establish a database with the information gathered by license plate scanners installed in police cars. The scanners will scan license plates of every car the police vehicle passes and transmit that information (along with the location) to a database that will be made available to various government agencies. The data wil be kept indefinitely."

The fact that Mass. would even put together a plan like this shows you just how weakened the 4th Amendment has become. Of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, this one, it seems to me, is the one that's the most gone.

The issue here is not a 4th amendment violation, at least directly. It's a technology advance that combines things that aren't 4th amendment violations 'what a police officer sees while patrolling' into a fully itemized searchable tracking database that does violate the 4th amendment's 'spirit'.

The data 'seen' at the time is not 4th amendment violating, but the storage and persistence of said data *should* be a 4th amendment violation. Technology is trumping even the Constitution and we need to update our concepts to match what is now possible for the government.

So your employer can look up your habits (or lack) of religious ceremony on the weekend? How will they treat you if they don't agree? So they can see if you went to the bar the night before work (even if you didn't drink?)

No, I think that your private life should not be open to the eyes of anyone in a position of power over you during any part of your day.

And lets not forget actually care for their citizens humanely by providing universal health care. A significant improvement over everybody else, though VT has now surpassed them with *actual* universal health care as opposed to mandated insurance coverage.

Bad actors exist on *both* sides. Need we bring up the Iraq war and the Bush tax cuts that are bankrupting us? Neither helped that many people, but they are actively hurting the majority of people.

Social Security and Medicare, also 'liberal' inventions that are quite popular and actually provide universal service...something no corporation would even attempt.

What have the GOP ever done for you besides artificially lower your taxes and then leave you with massive deficits caused by those low taxes?

You hit the nail on the head. Usage such as that IS legal and constitutional. I would go so far as to encourage the municipality to use technology in similar ways throughout the city as they are being more efficient in the discharge of their duties. More 'bang' for the tax buck, so to speak.

Storing all the plates that were scanned along with some location data so someone can be tracked to a specific location is, arguably, a violation of 4th amendment rights, particularly when that data is being shared wi

I'm just explaining that this dislike is from an inherent aspect of the world, not some new violation of the Constitution.

I believe that's what I was saying. My point is that small accruals that are collectively organized start to become something that the Constitution would prevent; such as in depth tracking of every individual in the country. They need a reason before they are allowed to do this.

which isn't unconstitutional unless you start arguing about privacy rights (which is only a penumbral right anyway).

You've lost the argument there unfortunately. The Constitution is expressly about privacy rights - the government does not have the right to anything except what is expressly granted. That means my privacy is more important than

May be, but IMOHO, because of how poor the education system has become in the US (largely thanks to the no child left behind movement), the majority of people don't understand the extreme importance of every amendment contained within the Bill Of Rights. People are literally happy to relinquish their rights, usually because they are too uneducated or afraid of ignorant and completely unjustified fear mongering.

Accordingly, the majority of states have extremely unconstitutional state laws; frequently which specifically target the second amendment rights. Furthermore, most people are too ignorant and/or stupid to know and/or acknowledge the second amendment is not only what empowers the first amendment, but only as recently as WWII, is the primary reason the continental US was not invaded.

Even recently I have been told that the tyranny of McCarthyism should be once again embraced, in the name of terror prevention, and that failing to do so makes you anti-government. And the really sad part was, this was from TWO people, whereby they absolutely were not trolling, and at least one had a four year technical degree. This was on a technical forum.

Without a doubt, stupidity is alive a well and the stupid masses are working overtime to dis-empower, if not out right destroy the protections afforded by the US Constitution.

Lets not get into hyperbole here, lest people take us all for nutters and disregard our warnings that this is an invasion of privacy.. Government-mandated propaganda and webcams in every home is more 1984 than cars being tracked, but this is pretty horrible.

Notice how much fun we would have if citizens reported the locations of all the police cars and speed traps? But no, they get to track us, where I'm sure "for a fee" the media can snoop to find out if the pastor went to the atheist rally or something.

So, if a corporation would do that, it's OK, but if a govt. does it, it's not?

Actually yes that's correct. What do you think would happen to that corporation if it came out they were tracking everybody like this? They'd be run out of business quite fast. (mobile phones are a different story as people receive significant benefit from said 'tracking'; i.e. the mobile connectivity).

The 'government' can't be 'boycotted' in the manner of a corporation so yes they aren't supposed to be allowed to do such things. Corporations also don't enforce the laws (theoretically anyway) so they don't have the leverage the government does over your freedoms either.

What do you think would happen to that corporation if it came out they were tracking everybody like this? They'd be run out of business quite fast.

False. Acxiom [acxiom.com] for example collects incredibly detailed dossiers on every American citizen, ostensibly for "marketing" purposes. But you can bet your last dollar they have some big, fat pipes from their datacenter up to McLean & Ft. Meade.

So why don't consumers run this kind of company out of business? It's simple - these businesses make money from the purchasers of the dossiers, not from the citizens who are tracked against their will. There is basically no legal way, and certainly no way that is p

Funny, last I checked you just don't frequent those businesses and don't spend money at them. Like I no longer stop at any BP gas stations.

If the government wanted to follow me around... they could

Yes they could. They also should have to get a warrant to do active tracking. Freedoms should be *hard* to impinge. My issue is not the observational nature, it's the persistence of that data after the observation.

The issue is not simply that tracking you is bad, the issue is that later the government will use that data later for wholly unrelated reasons. What g

Dude. Please go read about slavery, then never compare having your license plate kept in a database to being chained in the hull of a ship for months, sold, forced to labor, quartered in a shack, bred like a dog, and fed garbage for the rest of your short, disease-ridden life.

Dear sir,
On 7/22/2011 the State of Massachusetts posted a Stop Work Notice or Notice of Violation on your post for "illegal star-spangled banner pole height".
As of this date, no permits have been issued to clear the Stop Work Notice or Notice of Violation. You must apply for all required permits and approvals, pay all associated fees or take necessary action to correct the violation within 30 days of this notice. No permits, licenses, or other entitlements may be issues by any State Department until this violation has been cleared.

I don't know how many states are doing this now, but they also under at least SOME circumstances share with the feds as well. Vermont I KNOW for certain has had this for some time, though far from all PDs have the equipment yet. They're way ahead of the civil rights people on this one, and their official line is you're in public, you don't have a right to privacy in public, and "oh we keep it all secure and only accessible under controlled conditions" which of course means every intel agency in the govt has it of course...

Truthfully though, this stuff is inevitable, the issue is the sneaky way they're kind of sliding into it. There was NO debate on this at all in our state.

Is Vermont storing a database of where and when everyone's license plates have been scanned, or is it they just have scanners that connect to a database that lets the cops know that the car is stolen or being searched for in some way?

Yes, they retain this data. I've confirmed that. I don't know how long it is retained, but it IS uploaded. I've pointed out to some people over there that this seems quite dubious, but that's what they do and they're not interested in whether people like it or not.

So, of course, if the police were all to be followed by citizen chase cars who report their position on a live map and offer a live video feed, there will be no objections at all since the car is in public and has no expectations of privacy, right?

They have a point, its the same point people here make when someone gets arrested for video taping a cop. We don't get to take both sides of the argument.

Yes you do. On one side you have agents of the state with a legitimised right to commit violence, on the other side you have ordinary everyday citizens; obviously very different standards should apply to the two sides.

This is true, but what is the justification for it? And why is it being done without any real discussion? I mean it isn't a SECRET, but it isn't as if there was any effort made to have a public debate about it either. Just sort of "oh, by the way, we're now tracking where everyone goes. Have a nice day."

I'm not even saying I necessarily have a huge problem with it. In fact it can work in your favor if there's ever a question about where you were at any given time. There should simply be a more thorough disc

The same thing? Is Google really maintaining a continuously updated, searchable database of the license plate number and location of every car it captures on street view? It seems to me they aren't doing anything like that.

I think the problem rests in old case law, developed when automation like this was just science fiction, that anything not on private property is fair game. We need a new legal concept of "public but ephemeral" that applies to information that is normally soon forgotten like who was in a parking lot a week ago. Any collection of ephemeral data that occurs without a warrant should itself expire within a short period of time as well should be distribution limited - i.e. no sending it off to another database at the FBI that is exempt.

That may still be too much of a slippery slope, because once its collected there will always be pressure to extend the retention and expand the distribution. All it would take is one kid getting kidnapped and the license plate data expiring a day before the cops thought to look at it and voila, ready-made emotional argument to push for doubling retention time.

In Florida, the cops download a list of license plates of interest and only check scanned plates against the list instead of uploading everything they scan to a database. I'm not too happy with that either because I don't think that requiring a driver to regularly prove their innocence is valid, even if it is done passively, but at least it is miles better than what Massachusetts is planning.

I understand the desire for privacy, but it does worry me that so many people here seem to feel the need to "hide" from the police.

Most decent, hard-working, non-violent citizens whom I know are as afraid of the cops as they are of criminals. Most people realize that nothing good ever comes from interacting with the police. And this is in California, where our cops are well behaved by comparison to many other states.

I think the problem rests in old case law, developed when automation like this was just science fiction, that anything not on private property is fair game. We need a new legal concept of "public but ephemeral" that applies to information that is normally soon forgotten like who was in a parking lot a week ago.

I agree, in general, though there is room to quibble about whether the gap in the law is best sourced to "old case law" or to the fact that the Constitution itself doesn't consider the issue of public ephemeral data.

Any collection of ephemeral data that occurs without a warrant should itself expire within a short period of time as well should be distribution limited - i.e. no sending it off to another database at the FBI that is exempt.

That may still be too much of a slippery slope, because once its collected there will always be pressure to extend the retention and expand the distribution. All it would take is one kid getting kidnapped and the license plate data expiring a day before the cops thought to look at it and voila, ready-made emotional argument to push for doubling retention time.

Alternatively, you could retain the data indefinitely, but require a warrant for the search of the historical data, specifying the search parameters and providing the cause justifying the search. This would give non-current public ephemeral data similar protection to traditional private data, while at the same time not destroying the data itself. Since the data can be searched with a warrant issued with cause, this eliminates the risk of mandated destruction destroying evidence that could have solved a crime -- and thus eliminates the opportunity for exploiting that as the basis for lobbying for extension in the "casual search" window for the data.

Everyone should just start phoning the police, FBI, DHS et al and letting them know where you and who you are with every time you change locations. In addition you should forward them copies of all the emails that you send and receive.

You want to track me and my car in your state? Fine, let me see and track via public website every single location of all elected personnel working in that state then, starting with the Senators. Hey, might as well see where my elected officials are at, especially while "on" duty.

Oh, I'm sorry, shoe on the other foot doesn't fit so well? No room for privacy and freedom? Gee, go figure.

I once told my IT manager, "Just because we can doesn't mean we should." Technology, very unfortunately, has erroded our rights simply because the "government" whether local or not can do these things without accountability or scrutiny. When you do make noises, they justify it by citing public safety, the welfare for women and children, and other politically correct BS. I don't think there is a corner left in life to find some privacy. It won't be log before *everything* you do is logged.

I work with dozens of police organizations that use license plate readers. They are extremely effective and even a small fleet of cars can easily gather thousands upon tens of thousands of license plates a day in their jurisdiction. Tracking people via this technology is a scary thing to think about because it would be extremely effective. I disagree with their use in regular police operations, so this database is just plain crazy in my mind. This should be fought against by anyone who values the small amount of privacy we have left in this country.

I can't stress enough how crazy this would be if this happened and started getting adopted outside of MA. This would be one of the worst invasions of privacy ever. There is already enough tracking that goes on with the toll passes (EZ-Pass, Sun Pass, etc) in all the states that have them as well as all the cameras that are up everywhere in most major cities. But that should be expected, as you are voluntarily signing up for the convenience of speedier tolls and most of the camera systems are used to help detect crimes (such as ShotSpotter hearing gun shots and dispatching police). But if you choose to not have any kind of electronic pass or GPS in your car, there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The 6th Amendment [usconstitution.net] to the US Constitution states [emphasis added]:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Just how do you confront a video recorder? How do you prove it hasn't been altered? How to you prove the date/time is accurate? How do you prove who was driving?

Can they go back and issue citations for expired registrations based upon these recordings? For how long? What about parking citations?

Will the videos be available via FOIA requests? If so, what's to stop a stalker, spouse, or other individual from using these in civil cases, or even for extortion? What happens when the preacher's/politician's car is spotted parked near an "adult video store", strip club, etc.? Even if they're "not available" via FOIA requests, people are corruptible and someone will get their hands on videos that they can use for criminal purposes.

There are just too many unanswered questions. While they might be able to make a case for keeping the recordings for 3-6 months, anything longer just presents too much potential for misuse/abuse, and even those short periods will allow the unscrupulous the opportunity to steal videos that they can use to blackmail others.

Note to Massachusetts' politicians: Such videos will be used against you at some point. Count on it. If you don't care about the privacy of the citizens, at least think of your self interest before voting for this.

Note to Massachusetts' politicians: Such videos will be used against you at some point. Count on it. If you don't care about the privacy of the citizens, at least think of your self interest before voting for this.

Which is why the first thing any legislative reform should do is apply personal liability for the sponsors of unconstitutional laws.

The fact that police cars have cameras which can identify license plates and flag any vehicles with violations will make the roads safer. Storing that information along with location and date/time information for an indefinite period doesn't help anything. You know, for the citizens at least.

I think that plate numbers can already be flagged. They're just not tracked. So this doesn't really affect the uninsured case. I sure got pulled over quick when my registration expired. I rather doubt it was the super tiny sticker which the cops noticed at night. It was probably flagged as recently expired. The difference here would be that you could look back for sightings of a car that was just reported stolen or silently track someone without a warrant, eg anti-terrorism. But I honestly think that we nee

This kind of thing would be utter hell on suspended and uninsured drivers. It could help make the roads WAY safer.

If you truly believe that suspended and uninsured drivers are the real problem. I lived in a "segregated" neighborhood, 80% middle class, 20% waterfront (4-10x the price for real-estate on the water). The dangerous drivers in that neighborhood lived mostly on the waterfront - they could afford the tickets, they could afford whatever the insurance companies wanted to charge, and when they got in trouble, they could afford the lawyers to make it go away.

The uninsured and suspended drivers get tracked, the cops use the tracking to find and arrest them. Their cars get impounded. Essentially, they are harassed off the road. Suspended/uninsured drivers cause most of the accidents.

In Texas, for example, it is officially recognized that at least 21% of vehicles are uninsured, but that more than half of all car accidents involve at least 1 uninsured driver. If you have insurance, there is a very good chance the car that hit you does not.

Exactly! Florida already tracks uninsured drivers through a database, if they wanted to impound the cars, they've got the addresses, all they'd have to do is drive around and pick them up - won't happen unless prompted by some other motivation.

Oh yeah, but guess what they will do. They'll pretend that each car has only one driver, because many cars do so. Then they'll harass every car owner who happens not to have a valid drivers' license at the time their database report got generated. And then they'll say "oh, but it's a very small minority of car owners and we have a right to verify anyway". And so it goes.

Only to be replaced by bastards. It's a never ending cycle. A lose lose situation. Pretty sad.

Because only a bastard would devote their life to politics for the sake of power... it's a fundamental flaw in the system. I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who suggested rule by conscription - but that's bad for business because it's less predictable, at least with the present system you get a chance to know the bastard before they rise to a significant level of power.

If we're going to have this level of accountability to government, they should have twice the level of accountability to us - public database

"Trained to fight?" No, most police are not trained to "fight". They're trained to shoot at the slightest provocation (though not well), trained to taze, trained to kill barking dogs at the wrong address, and they're trained to call in half the department on any excuse. Mano a mano, they're not much better than anyone else. A hardened street thug who is used to real combat, who from experience knows how to endure a boot to the skull or a knife-cut and keep going anyway, will chew up and spit out the average

I've been thinking about having an SQL injection bumper sticker made. I would do it in reflective material and OCR friendly font. I think just a simple ');-- immediately to the left of the plate should do.

No, this is Massachusetts. It means they won't keep a record of license plates belonging to Democratic politicians ever because it would be too easy to figure out who they are taking bribes from. According to something I read, the last three speakers of the Massachusetts state legislature are in jail for corruption (they are all Democrats). The current speaker is a protege of one of those three.

By a very large majority in both houses. They have a supermajority in the House, and there are only a few token Republicans in the Senate.

Note that this kicks in not long after a Democrat takes the governorship, making the MA government absolutely dominated by Democrats. The only way Republicans have any influence is to get something the Democrats did declared unconstitutional in state court.

So your metaphor needs changing to reflect the reality of what exceptions would be. It's more likely the Democrats would be specifically tracking Republicans to catch them at gay bath houses.

Neat ideas, but unfortunately if an innocent, law-abiding person is driving the vehicle of someone who's license is suspended / is uninsured / a criminal, we're going to have a lot of false positives. If my license was suspended and I was obeying the law and not driving, it's totally possible that a family member or friend would then be driving my car, and it'd be out on the road getting scanned by these scanners.

This is pretty much the best summary of it I've seen. Even retaining the data a short time makes sense: say if a kidnapping is reported 2-3 days later, knowing where the kidnapper was could be very valuable. TFA mentions one of the city's has a system that overwrites the data after 30 days (still a long time, but moderately reasonable.) But indefinitely? Shared with any agency that asks? There is no good reason for that. No way this kind of info is ever going to be useful in court, as there would be no way

One problem I see is how is this data protected from tampering. They need a correctly designed, executed and audited scheme of digitally signing the records when they're created. Otherwise anyone can modify data in such a database, and how would anyone know?

shouldn't you expect everything you do in public to be potentially monitored?

no. and you are stupid if you have already *assumed* this. dammit!

maybe its a generational thing. I'm in my 50's and I grew up with 'anonymity' and the freedom to travel and just *be* and not be disturbed if you are not bothering anyone. now, innocent or not, you are tracked and monitored and scanned at every chance.

people my age grew up in a country where all that we do now is what we said of 'those godless commies in russia'. so much of what I remember being told -as a kid - how different we are and what made us different; people don't say those things anymore. we don't compare ourselves to such-and-such a country and say we are the good guys, hands down. not unless we compare ourselves to the worst of the worst and that's not a very useful comparison for a world power, now, is it?

in just ONE generation, so much has been lost? this makes me incredibly sad. and that people of your age (I'm assuming, correct me if I'm wrong) are happy to accept google's CEO saying that privacy is dead. or[well], was that the oracle guy? I forget which power-happy CEO said that, but I don't care if jesus christ came down on mount high and said it - I will never agree that privacy is worth handing over and submitting for public inspection. just because there is tech ability to do X does not mean its ok to just plow ahead and say 'lets just TRY this and see'. no, some people can see this is already a bad idea and we don't need to try this out!

you don't realize what you give up. once its gone, its gone. you are asking society to fundamentally change and live in glass houses. people have varying degrees of 'their space' but you are all for pushing this limit, aren't you?

I think you are making a huge mistake simply giving in and accepting the conclusion that they feed you. there are varying degrees of information and privacy and its certainly not an all-or-nothing affair.